Quincy burns old public records

Quincy opts to burn old public records instead of shredding them, saying it would've cost $22,000 to shred them.

Patrick Ronan The Patriot Ledger @pronan_Ledger

QUINCY – City officials say it would have cost $22,000 to shred old documents, so they decided to burn them instead.

Shortly before 5 p.m. Monday, a reporter observed two department of public works employees destroying paper records by dumping them into two burn barrels, sending a black cloud of smoke into the sky above the DPW yard at 55 Sea St. At least 10 boxes of records were next to the barrels, marked with various words such as “ZBA” and “DEP.”

One of the workers said he was following orders from his boss, Public Works Commissioner Daniel Raymondi. Raymondi couldn’t be reached for comment Monday.

However, Christopher Walker, a spokesman for Mayor Thomas Koch, said he spoke with a DPW official and learned that the city was disposing of records that were between 15 and 20 years old. The city opted not to shred the documents because it would have cost $22,000, Walker said.

“They’re being disposed of with approval from the secretary of state’s office,” Walker said.

The state Department of Environmental Protection has a ban on burning recyclable paper. DEP spokesman Ed Collette didn’t want to comment specifically on Quincy burning public records, but said the ban includes recyclable paper.

“There is a waste ban on sending those materials to a landfill or an incinerator,” Collette said.

Walker said Mayor Koch had no problem with the way the papers were being destroyed.

“Everything was done with approval of the secretary of state’s office,” Walker said.

State law requires municipalities to get approval from the secretary of state’s office before destroying public records.

Quincy Fire Chief Joseph Barron said the city usually prohibits outdoor burning, but he made an exception because the DPW yard is an open space and the burning wasn’t done within 200 feet of a structure.

“The blanket policy is not to allow it, but it’s an unusual circumstance because they have the proximity to do it,” Barron said.

Barron said he didn’t need to issue a burning permit because it involved a city entity.